News What will happen in the 2006 mid-term elections?

[Astronuc]

Fifteen bills on small appliances introduced in a single day. Surely, that has to be a new record!

What the heck, you ask? Well, let's see, it's got to be one of the reasons below:

a) May 26th was the day George Allen came out of the closet and admitted a fetish for small kitchen appliances.
b) God only knows! He meant to stop at three in the "How many small appliances bills can you introduce?" pool, but the bidding just got out of hand.
c) His tie got caught in the office paper shredder and everyone knows kitchen appliances are the arch enemy of office appliances.
d) Hamilton Beach, manufacturer of small appliances, has its headquarters in Richmond, VA.

I'll guess 'a'. Unbelieveable waste of time and taxpayer money.

Meanwhile -

Alaska's Murkowski Faces Challenging Primary
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5685235

All Things Considered, August 21, 2006 · Alaska's Gov. Frank Murkowski faces a primary election for his second term Tuesday. Polls show the former senator with a positive rating of only about 20 percent in his own party. Murkowski has been criticized by many as being too close to the oil industry, and his primary challengers are both running on their plans to renegotiate unpopular deals with the industry.

The latest developments in Prudhoe Bay may not help the governor's prospects either.

How will this affect the voters' choices in the federal election?

Other NPR Stories on Election 2006
http://www.npr.org/templates/topics/topic.php?topicId=1067

November is going to be very interesting.

 

[Skyhunter]

Russ, how could you confuse me with SOS2008 She is younger and much prettier. :!)

The republicans have a pretty coherent strategy that focuses on national security and points out (but doesn't really do anything to improve) how prosperous our country is.

Really

Oh, you mean talking about national security, not really doing anything about it.

With the Republicans controlling the legislature, there is simply no way for the Dems to profit from those things. You saw what the Reps did with the minimum wage bill a few months ago, right? The reps will make the dems pay for it big time and will still be able to say they passed it themselves.

It has not been passed, and will not be passed as long as the reps insist on tying it to the inheritance tax and doing away with a minimum wage for people working for tips.

The problem the reps have is that they have been in charge and everything is screwed up. The American people are unhappy with Bush and the Congress. The Republicans are going to bear the brunt of the blame because, well, it is their fault.

 

[Astronuc]

I don't know how this link will work, but try this -
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/2006ELECTIONGUIDE.html?currentDataSet=senANALYSIS (Flash, registration maybe required for NYTimes)

Governor Finishes Third in Alaska G.O.P. Primary
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/washington/24alaska.html

ANCHORAGE, Aug. 23 — Gov. Frank H. Murkowski was decisively defeated in a Republican primary on Tuesday, a loss the governor interpreted as a rejection of his leadership style but one that also echoed an anti-incumbent mood elsewhere in the country.

Mr. Murkowski, 73, a former United States senator who left Washington in his fourth term to run for governor in 2002, won 19 percent of the vote in his bid for a second term, placing third in a three-way race, according to partial results released Wednesday.

Sarah Palin, 42, a former mayor of the little town of Wasilla who rose to prominence as a whistle-blower uncovering ethical misconduct in state government, won the nomination for governor with 51 percent of the vote.

John Binkley, a former state senator, received 30 percent. Mr. Murkowski promised to support Ms. Palin in November, when she faces former Gov. Tony Knowles, a Democrat who left office in 2002 because of term limits. Mr. Knowles, who made an unsuccessful bid for the United States Senate two years ago, won the Democratic primary with 69 percent of the vote.

I think both parties need a big turnover. Let some some new people into government, who hopefully aren't beholden to lobbyists and monied interests.

I hope Sarah Palin keeps it up. We could use more like her in government, particularly in Congress.

 

[BobG]

This is probably barely on topic only because it discusses the gerrymeandering that has made it so hard for something like the '94 Congressional election to be duplicated, but the headline is too funny to ignore: New York Times finds a non-gerrymandered district – expresses incredulity . (What's up with the New York Time's sudden interest in Colorado? They've written editorials about a proposed toll road in Colorado, as well.)

Closer to being on topic, at least one Colorado district seems probable to switch from Republican to Democrat (the district discussed in the article). Republicans are having higher than expected difficulty in two other districts, as well.

- Marilyn Musgrave looks like she's headed for yet another close race - her strong pro-religion and anti-abortion crusades in Congress appeal to a lot of voters in her district, but she doesn't seem to care or even have any competence on any other topics. In fact, her feuds with other members of Congress have cost her district in federal dollars (at least she's not guilty of adding to Congressional pork).

- Joel Hefley, retiring Republican Congressman, not only tossed the Republican candidate for his district under the bus, but backed over him a couple times: http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_241133149.html . When Lamborn won the nomination, there was some serious urging from Republicans that maybe it was a couple of years too early for Hefley to retire. The idea of Lamborn hanging on to a strong Republican district as incumbent for the next 10, 20 years is pretty upsetting. A lot of Republicans would like another chance to get a better Republican nominee in 2008, especially in a district where the federal government could devastate the economy by closing military bases around the city (we have five, if you count the Air Force Academy). Then, when announcing that Hefley would not be running as a write-in candidate, his staff had to toss in the fact that Hefley would "find it very difficult to endorse Lamborn, who relied on dirty campaigning to sway voters." It will be interesting to see if he really drives the stake in by endorsing the Democratic candidate.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, how could you confuse me with SOS2008 She is younger and much prettier. :!)

Oops, sorry.

Really

Oh, you mean talking about national security, not really doing anything about it.

If you want to see it that way, fine. It still works for a campaign - kinda like the Dems talking about economics and not doing anything about it.

It has not been passed, and will not be passed as long as the reps insist on tying it to the inheritance tax and doing away with a minimum wage for people working for tips.

Sorry, that was a prediction on my part. I wasn't clear on that. It died shortly before they broke for the summer and I rather suspect with the election coming and it being a hot issue, they will pass it soon after they reconvene.

The problem the reps have is that they have been in charge and everything is screwed up. The American people are unhappy with Bush and the Congress. The Republicans are going to bear the brunt of the blame because, well, it is their fault.

"Everything" is a big word and even if there are some things that are screwed-up, now more than ever, the causes can easily be argued to be external. This isn't 1980, when there was only one issue (the economy) and with the exception of the gas prices at the time, there was no way to externalize the problem.

Today, our problems (as Democrats see them) are:
- Iraq
- Terror
- Gas prices
- The economy
- Perhaps Katrina

But they can't really use any of those issues safely.

- For Iraq, a significant fraction of the population believes that even without finding wmd, the invasion was a good idea. Few people believe it is going well now, but then few people trust a Democrat to run a war either way.
- There are two parts to the terror issue, internal and external. As with Iraq, few people trust a Democrat to run a war. One issue they may be able to hang their hat on is Patriot Act type stuff, but that is easily countered with pictures of 9/11, so it is risky to try to use it.
- Gas prices are on the way down and the election is in November, not February.
- The economy is pretty close to as good as it gets, and Democrats will not be able to find a way to convince people otherwise. They'll target the usual suspects, though: poverty and healthcare.
- Katrina cuts both ways. Discussed in a separate thread.

 

[russ_watters]

A little more on this:

If you want to see it that way, fine. It still works for a campaign...

Maybe you guys will find this incredibly cynical, but the reality is that a campaign is not about what is good or bad for/in the country, it is about what politicians can convince the public is good/bad for/in the country (which includes the politician's character). Like the movie quote: "It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove."

That means that great care has to be taken in selecting issues because public perception is everything. One of the critical things that killed Kerry, for example was the perception of him as an America-hating hippie. He made his Vietnam service an issue because he wanted o seem tougher (that thing above about votors not wanting a democrat to fight a war). But that made him a target for an easy one-two counterpunch about an embellished record and his after the war conduct (the Jane Fonda connection).

The point is, a lot of issues are double-edged and if they want to win, the Democrats have to be smart in how they pick them and how they attack them.

 

[BobG]

Today, our problems (as Democrats see them) are:
- Iraq
- Terror
- Gas prices
- The economy
- Perhaps Katrina

But they can't really use any of those issues safely.

- For Iraq, a significant fraction of the population believes that even without finding wmd, the invasion was a good idea. Few people believe it is going well now, but then few people trust a Democrat to run a war either way.
- There are two parts to the terror issue, internal and external. As with Iraq, few people trust a Democrat to run a war. One issue they may be able to hang their hat on is Patriot Act type stuff, but that is easily countered with pictures of 9/11, so it is risky to try to use it.
- Gas prices are on the way down and the election is in November, not February.
- The economy is pretty close to as good as it gets, and Democrats will not be able to find a way to convince people otherwise. They'll target the usual suspects, though: poverty and healthcare.
- Katrina cuts both ways. Discussed in a separate thread.

Actually, the most recent polls indicate people have more trust in Democrats to handle Iraq than they do in Republicans. Not that either party can get over 50% of surveyees to say they have trust in them. In fact, as things get worse, the "Neither" option is the one making gains.

And only one poll has more people believing the Iraq invasion was a good thing than bad thing (Newsweek), and that's only by 49-47.

Dems giving an honest answer about what they'll do about Iraq is their biggest problem. Bush's comments about the consequences of Iraq is about the only thing he's gotten right about it. The problem is that Americans are deciding a stable government in Iraq is unattainable. Dems can't easily say they'll "stay the course", but surely they don't want to be held accountable for the carnage that ensues as soon as we leave. The only bright spot for Dems is watching Reps try to come up with a safe comment about Iraq.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

 

[SOS2008]

So here it comes, some more national security fear-mongering!

Rummy continues with the claim that the war on terrorism is a war against fascism -

"Rumsfeld: War critics have ‘moral ... confusion’
Defense secretary tells veterans that U.S. faces a ‘new type of fascism’" --
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14570794/

Rummy alludes to history, and how we need to learn lessons from it. Bush continues with that theme now likening terrorists to Nazis -

Bush: Iraq a 'decisive ideological struggle'
President predicts victory despite disillusionment

SALT LAKE CITY - President Bush on Thursday predicted victory in the war on terror at a time of increasing public anxiety at home, likening the struggle against Islamic fundamentalism with the fight against Nazis and communists.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14599961/?GT1=8404

Yes, let's learn from history, starting with the absurd use of these terms. There is some aspects of fascism in Islamic fundamentalism, but not enough for the term to properly apply. Nazis and communists are even further off the mark.

In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration’s critics as suffering from “moral or intellectual confusion” about what threatens the nation’s security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.

First, in regard to intellectual confusion, these idiots need to look in the mirror! And let's stop with the usual cherry picking (if we can even find the tree!). Nazis/Hitler were able to rise in power because people did not QUESTION AUTHORITY until it was too late!

And one might note that Bush is making the connection of Nazism to the war in Iraq. It has already been established that Iraq is a separate issue from terrorism/Al Qaeda. Of course since most Americans don't know history, including current events, many will fall for this Bush!t.

Second is the claim of "moral confusion." Once again, these idiots (and certain conservatives, particularly the religious-right) need to look in the mirror!

Bush's moral compass out of whack

...President Bush has made his position clear on a number of occasions: he believes even a fertilized human egg is an individual human life and that sacrificing human lives, even to save the lives of others, crosses a moral boundary off-limits to decent societies.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume Mr. Bush is correct about the blastocysts being people. Further, let’s do him the courtesy of taking his position - no lives sacrificed to save lives - seriously. That’s his belief and he’s entitled to it. Here’s what logically follows:

No more wars, certainly not wars that kill civilians. That means no Afghanistan, no Iraq. Not even to save American lives - remember, that would cross Mr. Bush’s moral line.

Terrorism is out in any case, but so is responding in a way that leads to the death of innocent non-combatants. So, no Israeli bombing of Lebanon.

The death penalty has to go. No human enterprise is carried through without error; inevitably, wrongly convicted prisoners will be killed.

Unless Mr. Bush is willing to give on these points or own up to his contradictions, his particular moral objection to the destruction of unconscious cell clusters carries no weight.

He won’t. So there we have it: major medical advances are being resisted on moral grounds by a president whose own moral compass - by his own definition - is out of whack.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14230700/

FREE MY PEOPLE, if not from tyranny, then from sheer stupidity. Replace the likes of Frist, Santorum, etc., with the Rule of Reason once more. Than impeach Bush/Cheney -- we cannot afford two more years of this!

 

[BobG]

Today, our problems (as Democrats see them) are:
- Iraq
- Terror
- Gas prices
- The economy
- Perhaps Katrina

But they can't really use any of those issues safely.

- For Iraq, a significant fraction of the population believes that even without finding wmd, the invasion was a good idea. Few people believe it is going well now, but then few people trust a Democrat to run a war either way.
- There are two parts to the terror issue, internal and external. As with Iraq, few people trust a Democrat to run a war. One issue they may be able to hang their hat on is Patriot Act type stuff, but that is easily countered with pictures of 9/11, so it is risky to try to use it.
- Gas prices are on the way down and the election is in November, not February.
- The economy is pretty close to as good as it gets, and Democrats will not be able to find a way to convince people otherwise. They'll target the usual suspects, though: poverty and healthcare.
- Katrina cuts both ways. Discussed in a separate thread.

As for terror, if we don't have another attack in the US in the next 2 1/2 years, Bush can tie Clinton's record on terrorism (at least in the number of events, if not the number of casualties).

To be honest, you're right about people's perceptions about Bush and terrorism. Fear works.

The reality is we've had two terrorist attacks in the US in 13 years. If we don't have another before 2009, then Bush is maintaining par for the course. If we don't have another by 2017, maybe you could make a case for our anti-terrorism actions having an impact.

 

[SOS2008]

- The economy is pretty close to as good as it gets, and Democrats will not be able to find a way to convince people otherwise. They'll target the usual suspects, though: poverty and healthcare.

The price of gas (even if it becomes a bit lower, it will still be high) is not an isolated issue from the bigger issue of a poor energy policy -- No one cares for Bush/Cheney and their oil backgrounds -- or the even bigger issue of inflation.

Rising costs are a general topic--not just health care, but education, and housing as well as energy. Here is a link to an article last year on housing in Arizona, which is all the more relevant now. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0911affordable11.html

I find it interesting that you and others think the economy is good when the median price of a home is $163,000 where local residents only earn a median of $17/hour, or worse where the median price of a home is $454,500 where local residents only earn a median of $21/hour. The American Dream is out of reach for most people now.

The Dems are not going to just target a certain problem within the economy such as health care, but more importantly how to increase incomes. This is why props to increase the minimum wage to a living wage will be their target. If the Republicans think the American people are cognisant of the games they are playing with legislation in an attempt to make Dems look bad, think again. Americans barely read or watch the news. Those like me who do follow such games can see how ugly the GOP is.

Because the truth often is cynical:

A little more on this: Maybe you guys will find this incredibly cynical, but the reality is that a campaign is not about what is good or bad for/in the country, it is about what politicians can convince the public is good/bad for/in the country (which includes the politician's character). Like the movie quote: "It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove."

Sad, don't you think, that our futures are dependent on marketing rather than real caring for America? How odd that Republicans seem to be so proud of this. It must be a trait of capitalism as it has evolved. It is only important to win, the means do not matter, nor the destruction of the world if that is required.

And BTW, Kerry did not want attention focused on his war record, because he knew the opposition would twist it in an unfavorable way (per his previous campaigns), and the Swifties/GOP did just that. The mistake was that Kerry should have put a spot light on Bush's National Guard record before they had the chance.

 

[Gokul43201]

The Webb volunteer was of Indian (South Asian) descent, not native American. His name is Sidharth, but Allen calls him "Macaca" (a kind of SE Asian monkey).

[MEDIA=youtube]pL3Q9gUEvtA[/MEDIA][/URL][/QUOTE]Correction: The term [i]macaca[/i], as used by Allen, is the French-Tunisian equivalent of 'cool person'.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, the most recent polls indicate people have more trust in Democrats to handle Iraq than they do in Republicans.

Hmm - didn't realize that. That was different 4 years ago. I see the "neither" category is making the biggest gains. Certainly, though, the issue holds a lot of risk for Bush as well.

And only one poll has more people believing the Iraq invasion was a good thing than bad thing (Newsweek), and that's only by 49-47.

Well, I didn't say a majority/plurality - I just meant that there is little swing potential in that issue.

Dems giving an honest answer about what they'll do about Iraq is their biggest problem.

Well, that's the thing - with the election coming up, they'll need to talk about it more if they want it to be an issue. And like last time, talking but saying nothing will hurt them.

As for terror, if we don't have another attack in the US in the next 2 1/2 years, Bush can tie Clinton's record on terrorism (at least in the number of events, if not the number of casualties)...

The reality is we've had two terrorist attacks in the US in 13 years. If we don't have another before 2009, then Bush is maintaining par for the course. If we don't have another by 2017, maybe you could make a case for our anti-terrorism actions having an impact.

Well, there are lots of ways to look at that, tooo - Clinton failed to stop a rising star in the terrrist world, and 9/11 was soon enough after Bush took office that Clinton must share the blame.

Also, "record" is wins vs losses. Bush has had to come up to bat a lot more times than Clinton did (because Clinton failed to stop that rising star). Maybe it has mostly been one man (bin Laden, not Clinton), but radical islamic terrorism has been on the rise since the early '90s.

Also, you don't necessarily need to call it terrorism, but you won't gain a lot of fans by leaving the Cole and embassy bombings off the batting average.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Bush has had to come up to bat a lot more times than Clinton did

Not "had to"; he elected to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and do it in the particularly ineffective way he did. The contunuing bad news and low poll ratings in result cannot be blamed on anything that was forced on the President.

 

[russ_watters]

The price of gas (even if it becomes a bit lower, it will still be high) is not an isolated issue from the bigger issue of a poor energy policy...

Clearly. But energy policy in the US took a wrong turn in 1979. Though it won't help him in this campaign, Bush may well be remembered as the President who put energy policy back on track by restarting the nuclear program. And I think you overestimate the level of blame people will throw on Bush for gas prices. Frankly, my confidence in Democrats' understanding of economics is pretty thin, but many people DO understand the causal relationship between supply and demand. With Katrina a year ago and gas prices dropping now, I don't think Dems will be able to profit from that issue.

-- No one cares for Bush/Cheney and their oil backgrounds...

Sure, but so what? Without some reality to sink their teeth into, how will the Democrats be able to convince the votors that that is a real problem? To a lot of people it is an irrelevancy.

-- or the even bigger issue of inflation.

People keep bringing that up, but have you looked at the numbers? Neither you nor I are old enough to even remember the last time the US had an inflation problem. Bringing it up can only hurt the Democratic party.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt[/url] [quote] Rising costs are a general topic--not just health care, but education, and housing as well as energy.[/quote] Of course, but complaints about these issues are quite simply based on a misunderstanding of economics. Democrats can't win an election by being straightforwardly wrong. It is just not possible to convince people of things that are not true. [quote] Here is a link to an article last year on housing in Arizona, which is all the more relevant now. [PLAIN]http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0911affordable11.html [/quote] Excellent example of what I'm talking about. This reporter just plain doesn't understand the issue she is writing about. It topped out in 2004, but the current housing boom is a straightforward matter of low interest rates driving more people to buy houses, which drives housing prices up. Democrats cannot convince people who just bought houses that they can't afford to buy houses. Home ownership rates were reasonably good under Clinton, but under Bush, the records have been shattered.

What's more, the other 65% of households who already owned homes made a ton of money from the boom. Democrats will not be able to convince them that a 25% increase in net worth in 6 years is a bad thing.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/historic/histt14.html

I find it interesting that you and others think the economy is good when the median price of a home is $163,000 where local residents only earn a median of $17/hour, or worse where the median price of a home is $454,500 where local residents only earn a median of $21/hour. The American Dream is out of reach for most people now.

I find it interesting that Democrats choose to draw conclusions about what facts should be when there is data available that tells you how things are. You think that people shouldn't be able to buy houses, but the fact is that they can.

The Dems are not going to just target a certain problem within the economy such as health care, but more importantly how to increase incomes.

Unfortunately for Democrats, the 2005 income numbers came out last week: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h03ar.html

Last year's income gains for the bottom 20% easily wiped out the previous two years of income losses. We're passed the bottom of the cycle and incomes will continue to rise (which will be a huge problem for Democrats in 2008). Yes, they are still below what they were when he took office, but now that they are rising again, it will even be tough to claim that the stagnant minimum wage has hurt them...

This is why props to increase the minimum wage to a living wage will be their target.

The minimum wage quite correctly was/has never meant to be a living wage. Regardless, I renew my prediction that the Republicans will pass a minimum wage increase in the next two months, making it impossible for the Democrats to use the issue.

If the Republicans think the American people are cognisant of the games they are playing with legislation in an attempt to make Dems look bad, think again. Americans barely read or watch the news. Those like me who do follow such games can see how ugly the GOP is.

Uh, didn't you just agree with me (well, sort of - you partially missed my point)? Yes, most Americans will not see the games the Republicans are playing.

Sad, don't you think, that our futures are dependent on marketing rather than real caring for America? How odd that Republicans seem to be so proud of this.

Actually, you misinterpret my feelings on that. I'm not proud, I'm smug, because Democrats are losing their own game. I'd much prefer a country where the rightful winner of the 2000 election (John McCain) was in power, but for now I'm fine with one where Democrats consistently shoot themselves in the foot.

It must be a trait of capitalism as it has evolved. It is only important to win, the means do not matter, nor the destruction of the world if that is required.

The destruction of the world would pretty badly hurt a capitalist, so no, that can't be a capitalist trait. I see it as a trait of ideologues - from both sides. But right now, the idealogues in the Democratic party are doing more harm to their party than the ones in the Republican party.

And BTW, Kerry did not want attention focused on his war record, because he knew the opposition would twist it in an unfavorable way (per his previous campaigns), and the Swifties/GOP did just that.

Then someone screwed up badly when they opened his appearance at the DNC with a 20 foot poster of him in his uniform. In addition to that, as I've discussed in other threads and above, the PACS do more harm than good to the party because they can't see past their own ideology. The SBV existed a much as anything else, as a response to MoveOn's (among others) ongoing attacks on Bush's service record.

The mistake was that Kerry should have put a spot light on Bush's National Guard record before they had the chance.

I'm not sure where you were during the campaign, but the attacks on Bush's service record started long before anyone ever heard of the SBV. Heck, Bush's service record was an issue in 2000 as well. I'm guessing the PACs simply didn't realize they didn't have the same leverage (ie, the same candidate) in 2004 as they did in 2000.

 

[russ_watters]

Not "had to"; he elected to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and do it in the particularly ineffective way he did.

It is clear from his activity level prior to 9/11 that Bin Laden's star was on the rise before the invasion of Afghanistan, peaking at 9/11, not long after Clinton left office. Bush didn't allow Bin Laden to become who he is today: Clinton did. Clinton made no meaninful response to multiple attacks, which is a great prestige builder for a terrorist.

 

[BobG]

Dems giving an honest answer about what they'll do about Iraq is their biggest problem.

Well, that's the thing - with the election coming up, they'll need to talk about it more if they want it to be an issue. And like last time, talking but saying nothing will hurt them.

Maybe, maybe not. Right now, the strategy seems to be to blame Rumsfeld for things going so bad. There is no unified Democratic position on what to do now. The logical comeback should be for Republicans to ask what Democrats would do differently, but that holds a lot of risk. What if the logical answer is that there really isn't a better way to do things now - that this is the best conditions you could expect given bad initial decisions?

Well, there are lots of ways to look at that, tooo - Clinton failed to stop a rising star in the terrrist world, and 9/11 was soon enough after Bush took office that Clinton must share the blame.

Also, "record" is wins vs losses. Bush has had to come up to bat a lot more times than Clinton did (because Clinton failed to stop that rising star). Maybe it has mostly been one man (bin Laden, not Clinton), but radical islamic terrorism has been on the rise since the early '90s.

Also, you don't necessarily need to call it terrorism, but you won't gain a lot of fans by leaving the Cole and embassy bombings off the batting average.

I'd call both terrorism. The reason Bush has focused on the absence of terrorist activities within the US is because there's been an increase in terrorist activities overall. Some of that could be attributed to Bush and Iraq (at least the terrorist activities in Iraq), but it's a little like blaming rising crime rates on the police department. Our anti-terrorist activities may be effective or ineffective in minimizing our own risk, but there's a lot of other factors besides anti-terrorism measures that go into the overall rate of terrorist activities. Bush hasn't been effective against the global war against terrorism, but neither has anyone else to this point.

My point about Bush is that with such a small sample size, there isn't a valid way to judge our current internal anti-terrorism measures. Evaluations have to be fairly subjective. If he sells the public on the idea that his actions make sense (which he has for the most part), then he wins politically regardless of whether his actions really are effective or appropriate to the level of threat.

 

[Skyhunter]

It is beginning to look more and more like the 2007-2008 House of Representatives will be Democratically controlled.

While Democrats have been crowing for months, it is only over the past few weeks that nonpartisan analysts have identified enough likely victories for Democrats to pick up the 15 House seats they need for a majority.

Rothenberg predicts Democrats will win between 15 and 20 additional seats. University of Virginia political scientist and congressional race handicapper Larry Sabato projects the party will pick up between 13 and 19 seats. Cook identifies 46 competitive seats -- 36 of which are held by Republicans -- and predicts: "Unless something dramatic happens before election day, Democrats will take control of the House.''

As a sign of the growing acceptance that Democrats are poised to win, the National Journal asked 75 GOP insiders last week to assign a number between zero (no chance) and 10 (virtual certainty) to the likelihood that Democrats will take over the House. The average score was 5.7.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/03/MNG4FKUMR51.DTL

Is Nevada turning blue?

The first polls done since the Aug. 15 primary are good news for Democrats Dina Titus and Jack Carter.

Titus, the state Senate Minority Leader, is ahead of GOP Congressman Jim Gibbons, 46.8 percent to 44.1 percent, according to the Wall Street Journal/Zogby Interactive poll.

Carter, the Democratic challenger to U.S. Senator John Ensign, is in a statistical ‘dead heat’ with Ensign, according to the Wall Street Journal/Zogby poll.

The poll shows Carter is 3.4 percentage points behind Ensign, with Ensign at 48.1 percent and Carter is at 44.7 percent. The poll has a margin of error of plus/minus 4.3 percent.

http://www.rgj.com/blogs/inside-nevada-politics/2006/08/new-polls-good-news-for-titus-and.html

It is only one poll, but it is right after the primary, and I think people are starting to pay attention to the mid-terms now. A better picture will emerge during September, but this has to be an encouraging sign for Dem's in the Senate.

Arizona could be a surprise as well. The Dem's have more money for get out the vote efforts. Good turnout of one parties voters in an off year could be the difference in tight races.

The Arizona Democratic Party has a lot more money than its Republican counterpart — thanks in no small part to its ex-chairman.
Campaign finance reports filed late in the week show Jim Pederson has contributed more than $1 million to the Arizona Democratic Party.
That brings the party's total contributions for this election cycle up to $3.8 million.
And even after expenses, the party reports more than $1 million in cash on hand.
By contrast, the Arizona Republican Party lists its contributions this election cycle at $878,000. With its expenses so far, that leaves $263,842 as of last week.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/145006

And Pederson is a good politician. If this succeeds, he will have aligned himself with a very popular Arizona Senator.

In making the announcement, Pederson said immigration is his top issue and has endorsed a bill introduced by Arizona's senior senator, John McCain; Kyl has a competing bill. After formal remarks, Pederson said: ""Look, I'm an Arizona Democrat... I'm a businessman ... and I'm a fiscal conservative. I yearn for the days when pragmatic solutions were the goal, not partisanship."

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/203144.htm

I am starting to see chinks in the Senate armor.

 

[Astronuc]

G.O.P. Seen to Be in Peril of Losing House
By ROBIN TONER and KATE ZERNIKE (NYTimes, Sept 5, 2006)
Republicans enter the fall campaign with their control of the House in jeopardy and the possibility of major Senate losses.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 — After a year of political turmoil, Republicans enter the fall campaign with their control of the House in serious jeopardy, the possibility of major losses in the Senate, and a national mood so unsettled that districts once considered safely Republican are now competitive, analysts and strategists in both parties say.

Sixty-five days before the election, the signs of Republican vulnerability are widespread.

Indiana, which President Bush carried by 21 percentage points in 2004, now has three Republican House incumbents in fiercely contested races. Around the country, some of the most senior Republicans are facing their stiffest challenges in years, including Representative E. Clay Shaw Jr. of Florida, the veteran Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee; Representative Nancy L. Johnson of Connecticut, a state increasingly symbolic of this year’s political unrest; and Representative Deborah Pryce of Ohio, the No. 4 Republican in the House.

Two independent political analysts have, in recent weeks, forecast a narrow Democratic takeover of the House, if current political conditions persist. Stuart Rothenberg, who had predicted Democratic gains of 8 to 12 seats in the House, now projects 15 to 20. Democrats need 15 to regain the majority. Charles Cook, the other analyst, said: “If nothing changes, I think the House will turn. The key is, if nothing changes.”

Republican leaders are determined to change things. Unlike the Democrats of 1994, caught off guard and astonished when they lost control of the Senate and the House that year, the Republicans have had ample warning of the gathering storm.

The question is - "are the Democrats ready to do a better job?"

I would actually prefer a block of Independents, who are not beholden to the traditional special interests of the Republicans and Democrats. We need a legislative branch whose members write the laws rather than lobbyists and consultants.

It's time that the American People come first and that Congress takes care of the People's business rather than the enrichment of members of Congress.

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe, maybe not. Right now, the strategy seems to be to blame Rumsfeld for things going so bad. There is no unified Democratic position on what to do now. The logical comeback should be for Republicans to ask what Democrats would do differently, but that holds a lot of risk. What if the logical answer is that there really isn't a better way to do things now - that this is the best conditions you could expect given bad initial decisions?

I don't know - can you win an election using that argument? 'Things suck, but I wouldn't be able to do any better' doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the electorate.

The reason Bush has focused on the absence of terrorist activities within the US is because there's been an increase in terrorist activities overall.

Do you mean if you include those against US troops overseas? The definitions get a little tricky (which is why I wasn't sure about how to label the Cole), but when the Cole was attacked, the "war on terror" was not underway. I don't think attacks in Afghanistan or Iraq would go on that scorecard. The 'fight 'em there so we don't have to fight 'em here' argument tends to hold considerable weight.

Some of that could be attributed to Bush and Iraq (at least the terrorist activities in Iraq), but it's a little like blaming rising crime rates on the police department.

Well anti-organized crime police know about that issue: You do get stung more if you go after the hornet's nest. But again, as long as they are stinging our military, they aren't stinging the general public.

My point about Bush is that with such a small sample size, there isn't a valid way to judge our current internal anti-terrorism measures.

Valid or not, the argument that we haven't had a terrorist attack on US soil (and have thwarted several) will carry a lot of weight in the upcoming elections. It is simple, true, and easy to see, even if the reality of the situaiton is far more complicated.

 

[russ_watters]

It is beginning to look more and more like the 2007-2008 House of Representatives will be Democratically controlled.

One reason I'm skeptical of such poll numbers is because poll numbers themselves are a campaign tactic. The Democrats are cheerleading and I think they are unlikely to pick up as many seats as they hope.

Part what I think fueled the election 2004 conspiracy theories is the overconfidence/overhyped pre-election polls. As one of your articles points out - they are often wrong.

 

[Astronuc]

One reason I'm skeptical of such poll numbers is because poll numbers themselves are a campaign tactic. The Democrats are cheerleading and I think they are unlikely to pick up as many seats as they hope.

There is that, and they need to stop. What happens when they have to step up to the plate, i.e. if they win a majority of one or both Houses.

Part what I think fueled the election 2004 conspiracy theories is the overconfidence/overhyped pre-election polls. As one of your articles points out - they are often wrong.

I have heard the same from Democrats and political scientists. On the other hand, there were irregularities, but perhaps not more than usually. It just got attention because Ohio, like Florida, became the swing state.

On the other hand, Bush motivated his supporters, and Kerry, like Gore, failed to motivate his supporters. Then there was the 45% who did want either.

In 2004, Bush got about 51% of the 55% who voted - or 28% of the eligible vote. That certainly is not a majority of the population, and certainly not a mandate. Kerry got 26-27% of the eligible voters.

 

[wasteofo2]

Early September updates:

Montana: Burns has been cutting Tester's lead. As I thought, Tester's going to be repeating the same **** about Burns being corrupt over and over, while Burns has time to remind Montana voters that they've very Conservative, and that Democrats aren't. I'm no longer sure how this race will turn out.

Pennsylvania: Santorum is still down, doing a little better, but generally losing by 5-8 in recent polls. He's probably the only senator garunteed a loss.

Ohio: Brown has consistantly been up by 3-7 points in polls all throughout August, and at this point, looks likely to pull off a win.

Rhode Island: In almost every recent poll, Whitehouse has been winning by very significant margins. Rhode Island might have finally realized that they have someone with an (R) next to their name representing them, and that it's not a very good match at this point.

Missouri: Still very close, lead switching back and forth. This race will probably be decided by only several thousand votes either way. Bad weather in one part of the state, or a very small scandal or particularly good ad could easily swing this election the little bit either way to give either candidate a win.

New Jersey: Kean pulled ahead by 3 points in the latest Farleigh-Dickinson and Rasmussen poll. This race will probably end up going to Menendez just cause of general anti-Republican sentiment, but in any year, he probably would end up losing.

Virginia: What was once a 31 point lead for Allen has turned into a loss in the latest Zogby poll, which for the first time in the race has Webb ahead (by less than 2%). Republican fatigue, Allen's apparent racism, and Jerry Falwell giving Webb an A- personal rating have probably all had a hand in Webb's remarkable performace. It's far from decided, but it seems now that Webb and Allen can compete on equal ground for the duration of the campaign.

Tennessee: Ford's only down by a few points in recent polls. Still an unlikely pickup, but the odds aren't insurmountable. If he could come up with a good ad campaign, he might be able to sway the 3 or 4% he'd need to in order to affect a change.

All poll numbers linked to at this wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2006

 

[McGyver]

Bold Politcal Tactics can Pay Off

Bold political campaign tactics seem to pay off more favorably than not, by perhaps a 70/30 margin. Bush won reelection in 2004 by boldly scaring voters with respect to terrorism, and he has repeatedly and boldly used 911 and terrorism favorably for his own political devices. I believe Sen Kerry would have faired better in 2004 if he had been more BOLD.

Rep. Murtha garnished a lot of favorable support for his bold comments regarding the war in Iraq, yet as much as many Democrats even allowed him to be beat up - by not supporting his position. Some Democrat candidates have beaten Democrat office holders in recent primaries by boldly declaring their opposition to the war in Iraq.

Bush and Co. believes so strongly in BOLD political maneuvers that they recently and desperately began throwing around rhetoric about facism - and they got a favorable bump in the polls. I believe if the Dems had boldly attacked the facism rhetoric, it would have removed most of its favorable charm.

It seems pretty clear that whatever party and candidates are willing to come off more bold and brash will fare better than those too afraid to try. Sizzy sells steak! So - let the campaigns rip with fire-raging ads.

The Dems should be able to can get more popularity boosts out of 911 related ads because Bush and Co. have failed to capture Bin Laden. But if somehow - Bin Laden were captured prior to the election - it would create a major boosts for all Republican candidates. But the Dems can pull from images of Katrina, high gas and heating costs, and domestic job losses vs. cash rich U.S. corporations. The former Exxon CEO and his $400M compensation makes him a poster boy for the Bush administration.

 

[BobG]

G.O.P. Seen to Be in Peril of Losing House
By ROBIN TONER and KATE ZERNIKE (NYTimes, Sept 5, 2006)
Republicans enter the fall campaign with their control of the House in jeopardy and the possibility of major Senate losses.

The question is - "are the Democrats ready to do a better job?"

I would actually prefer a block of Independents, who are not beholden to the traditional special interests of the Republicans and Democrats. We need a legislative branch whose members write the laws rather than lobbyists and consultants.

It's time that the American People come first and that Congress takes care of the People's business rather than the enrichment of members of Congress.

Maybe we'd better off with some politicians with a little courage, regardless of party. Here's a an article from January 2003 (before the invasion) rehashing the Senate debate over whether to authorize Bush to go to war in Iraq: Week of Shame.

I think the author, Winslow Wheeler, was against the idea of invading Iraq, but his article (about 20 pages in length) focuses on the process that went into passing the legislation, not the outcome. The primary gauge of whether a Senator or Representative performed well or badly was based on whether they held true to their own beliefs or opinion, not on whether they approved or disapproved the legislation.

For example, he says voters should take pride in John Warner and John McCain (pro-war) and in Robert Byrd, Lincoln Chafee, and Paul Wellstone (anti-war).

The list of politicians who seemed to be living in an alternative reality (their comments said exactly the opposite of what their votes said) included Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Clinton, Nelson (NE), Voinovich, Hagel, Bayh, Dodd, and others (both Republican and Democrat - in fact, being a potential Presidential contender almost ensured an absurd denial of the reality of what they were voting on).

Biden came so close to making the 'pride' list, but then seemed to decide he'd better not lose ground to other Presidential contenders and managed to successfully depart the world of reality.

A debate like the Oct 2002 debate is something worth remembering come election time, both this year and in 2008. It kind of puts McGyver's theory to the test, even if in a more subtle manner.

 

[Astronuc]

I've been catching some of the results of yesterday's primaries.

Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island won the Republican primary there on Tuesday, fending off a bid from a populist challenger that the national Republican Party had feared would cost it a seat it had held since 1976 in an overwhelmingly Democratic state.

NY Times, Sept 13, "In Setback for Democrats, Incumbent Wins Republican Senate Primary"

On the other hand, Eliot Spitzer and Clinton won their primaries. Andrew Cuomo is running for Attorney General. Cuomo made a comment that he was going to run a positive campaign - in the same speech he was trashing George Pataki and George Bush. Problems in the NY State government have as much to do with the way the Republicans and Democrats have decided to share the spoils, and the way Sheldon Silver (D, Assembly) and Joseph Bruno (R, Senate) deal with Pataki.

The list of politicians who seemed to be living in an alternative reality (their comments said exactly the opposite of what their votes said) included Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Clinton, Nelson (NE), Voinovich, Hagel, Bayh, Dodd, and others (both Republican and Democrat - in fact, being a potential Presidential contender almost ensured an absurd denial of the reality of what they were voting on).

Pretty sad group of people.

 

[BobG]

The list of politicians who seemed to be living in an alternative reality (their comments said exactly the opposite of what their votes said) included Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Clinton, Nelson (NE), Voinovich, Hagel, Bayh, Dodd, and others (both Republican and Democrat - in fact, being a potential Presidential contender almost ensured an absurd denial of the reality of what they were voting on).

Pretty sad group of people.

Rumsfeld said you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had.

The only way I can interpret what that list did was that they voted for the resolution they wish they had, not the resolution they had.

“Exhausting all efforts at the [United Nations]is essential ... . We must do everything we can to get the [United Nations] to succeed ... . Completely bypassing the [United Nations] would set a dangerous precedent that would undoubtedly be used by other countries in the future to our and the world’s detriment. It is too high a price to pay.”

Gephardt not only voted for, but was co-author of the legislation that authorized Bush to bypass the United Nations. But, technically, we didn't completely bypass the UN. We stopped in momentarily to embarrass ourselves.

“Our resolution does not give the president a blank check. It authorizes the use of U.S. military power only ‘to defend the national securityof the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq’ and to ‘enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.’

Lieberman was co-author of the Senate version of the resolution and stood in front of the cameras with the President to endorse it. Technically, what he said was true. Lieberman was instrumental in limiting Bush's powers to a blank check in Iraq vs. a blank check to wage war against the entire world.

His other comment was interesting, as well.

If we come to that moment where we have no other choice but war, then it is clear that we will have allies in good number at our side. That was one of the items we added to the resolution ...

I guess that's one way to get allies - just legislate them into existence.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world...

Well, at least she wasn't a co-author. Maybe she just didn't read it.

America must understand it cannot alone win a war against terrorism. It will require allies, friends, and partners.

If we do it right and lead through the [United Nations] in concert with our allies, we can set a new standard for American leadership and in-ternational cooperation.”

Even Republicans from Nebraska felt the need to say weird things when faced with a vote on this.

Biden's deliberations were the most poignant of all:

The president said he has not decided whether or not we are going to go to war. He said it is his hope that it can be avoided. Yet, for the first time in the history of the United States of America … the president of the United States is asking for the Congress to give him the equivalent of a declaration of war – to go to war– before the president has made up his mind.

But, later:

This is not a blank check for the use of force against Iraq for any reason. It is an authorization for the use of force, if necessary, to compel Iraq to disarm, as it promised after the Gulf War.

Well, technically, if you read the resolution, it is a blank check for the use of force for any reason. Perhaps he meant he had faith that Bush would only use that blank check appropriately?

 

[Astronuc]

Rumsfeld said you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had.

That is such a pathetic and lame statement. Bush planned to invade Iraq in 2000 - before he came to office. Bush became president Jan 20, 2001, and the US forces invaded on March 20, 2003. In two years and two months, these guys didn't have time to prepare?

No Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al had personal agendas and they did not care enough for the lives of the US troops and the innocent people in Iraq.

And now today I've learned that the CIA is suppose to doctor their analyses to support the view of the Bush administration (I still have to follow-up on this allegation, but it is consistent with other information). It's bad enough when it comes to health care, the environment and education, but to mislead the people and Congress in foreign policy, especially when it involves a protracted military action, is utterly unconscionable, and probably criminal.

With regard to the vote on the resolution that gave Bush the power to exercise the military option, where were the members of the House and Senate Intelligence committees? Where was the oversight? Where were they during the 1980's and 1990's, when the CIA and intelligence communities were warning of blowback and al Qaida. With a flurry of travel warnings, especially the increase in 1999 and 2000, it didn't occur to these people that the US could be attacked? Well, the Republicans were focussed on trying to remove Clinton from office, besides the fact that Dems and Reps were trying to get re-elected in Nov 2000.

 

[Gokul43201]

NY Times, Sept 13, "In Setback for Democrats, Incumbent Wins Republican Senate Primary"

This is a bad thing for the dems because Chafee is a very moderate Republican, and will pose a much bigger threat to Whitehouse (the Democratic candidate) than Laffey could have. Polls I saw last week showed Chafee and Whitehouse neck to neck, but Laffey was almost 20 points behind Whitehouse (on head to head).

 

[Skyhunter]

This is a bad thing for the dems because Chafee is a very moderate Republican, and will pose a much bigger threat to Whitehouse (the Democratic candidate) than Laffey could have. Polls I saw last week showed Chafee and Whitehouse neck to neck, but Laffey was almost 20 points behind Whitehouse (on head to head).

That should be an interesting race to watch.

With the poor calibre of statesmen that this Congress has produced, I certainly hope that we can elect a higher quality Congress in 2006 and 2008.

We already got rid if the worst of them, Delay, Ney, Jefferson, and Cunningham through indictment, or impending indictment. Now if we can manage to get some decent replacements, and have a large incumbent turnover, it is possible we might see a shift in the direction of leadership in this country.

I am not however holding my breath. A Democratic Congress would be preferable, but I would settle for any Congress that would do it's job. Having the House and Senate switch parties however would be the surest way to change leadership. Not only new leadership but leadership motivated to stop Bushco.

Then let us see if they can establish a unitary executive.

 

[Skyhunter]

One reason I'm skeptical of such poll numbers is because poll numbers themselves are a campaign tactic. The Democrats are cheerleading and I think they are unlikely to pick up as many seats as they hope.

I have seen the cheerleading polls. Those are the ones that are cherry picked, while ignoring other less favorable polls. Here is website that explains the myths about polls and shows how polls do reflect public opinion.

The poll that is most telling however in this case is that 52% of Americans do not trust Bush. Therefore, logically they are not going to be happy with their Representative, if said Representative has been a Bush enabler. The other problem is that most of the issues favor Democrats. Here is the http://people-press.org/reports/cache.php?ReportID=289 from the Pew Research Center from today. Republicans are in trouble in the House, no question about it. Will the Dem's be able to get the Senate... I would have said no, but now I think it is possible, call it a coin flip.

Part what I think fueled the election 2004 conspiracy theories is the overconfidence/overhyped pre-election polls. As one of your articles points out - they are often wrong.

I think it is much simpler than that. 2 presidential elections decided by 1 very close race in the state that Bush's campaign chair was also in charge of conducting the election. Machines that are not audit-able, long lines in Democratic precincts, blanket felons lists, etc. etc. etc. These are not theories, these things happened. Why they happened is not as important as how do we stop them from happening again.

Now the big GOP push is to require an ID to vote. Disenfranchisement and voter suppression is the meat and potatoes of the GOP's strategy. Couple that with the anti-immigrant hate initiatives to mobilize the republican redneck base, and there you have the makings of a neo-republican mid-term.

Unfortunately for them, I know a lot of redneck republicans that are fed up with Bush and his rubber stamp Congress. They might vote to ship all the illegals back to where they came from, but they plan to vote for the democratic or third party Representative.